The USA gets its way...again... (ICC)

Posted this in the community, but I was told to put it here. the following contains all my posts, so its a long read:



From the BBC:

"Supporters of the new global war crimes court have reacted with anger to a United Nations compromise that exempts American peacekeepers from any prosecution.
The UN Security Council voted unanimously for the 12-month exemption - to be renewed annually - to end a bitter row threatening peacekeeping operations.

Washington got only a temporary reprieve of dubious legality and a strong taste of global outrage

Human Rights Watch
Canada's ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker, said the Security Council had exceeded its powers.

But America warned of "serious consequences" if the International Criminal Court (ICC) ever arrested a member of the US military.

The BBC's UN correspondent says the new resolution will have little practical effect on the court's work.

But he says it has set the bad precedent of Security Council interference in an internationally agreed treaty.

'Not in mandate'

Ambassador Heinbecker told reporters: "We think this is a sad day for the United Nations.

"We don't think it's in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else."

The compromise resolution permitting the one-year exemption in investigating or prosecuting peacekeepers applies to countries, like the US, that do not support the ICC.

Deal was not in Security Council's mandate, said Canada's ambassador

But the possibility that the exemption would not be renewed brought a stiff warning from US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte.

"We cannot accept a structure that may transform the political criticism of America's world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom," he said.

"Should the ICC eventually seek to detain any American, the United States would regard this as illegitimate.

"No nation should underestimate our commitment to protect our citizens."

President Bush's administration had been threatening to veto all future UN peacekeeping missions if the American military was not granted permanent immunity from the ICC.

After the compromise Security Council resolution was passed, the UN's peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia was immediately renewed"


Of course we all know whats going to happen. In a years time, America will blackmail the UN again, forcing them to postpone to the next year, and so on.

So now we have two justice systems:

One for America, who is now allowed to do whatever it wants, including the massacre of civilians and one for the rest of the "unworthy" world, which must bow down to America's demands.

Nice, real nice

Fact is why does the USA get special dispensation from rules which it enforces against other countries? Why has the USA goth the right to force Yugoslavia to hand over Milosovitch (which is the right thing to do), but refuses to be subject to the same rules? how does the US expect other countries to follow these rules if they don't set a good example.

America is BLACKMAILING the world!

They say they "fight for freedom", yet they are quite happy to forget this "fight" if its going to suit their interests.

If the US military are such great defenders of freedom, they would follow the same rules as the rest of the world, without compromising peace keeping operations.

I'm fed up with America's view that it "Owns" the world, simply because its the only superpower left.

Bush's administration is getting such a bad reputation with the world (with the exception of Tony "i'm the presidnet's lap dog" Blair's crappy government). its almost cringe-worthy!

First we had the whole deal with Kyoto, now this. Time and again, America proves it doesn't give a damn about the UN.



Yeah, it may be unlocked. But right now, it's a trolling thread, Senate Trolling is so much fun because you can start an inflammatory thread under the guise of debate and discussion, when in reality, you've cre

 

nationalism sucks no nation is better or worse than any other

 

And Americans wonder why they are 'hated' around the globe.

This is another reason to go with the rest.

It's your everyday American i fell sorry for.

More and more people and countries are getting p***** with them,all because of their government thinking they are a special case and shouldn't be judged like the rest of the world !!!

 

I had a reply written, but I lost it when the other topic was locked.

Basically: What the rest of the world doesn't seem to understand is that it would be unconstitutional for the USA to join the ICC. It's not a feigned moral superiority. We're not being uppity. It's a simple matter of fact that unless we make fundamental changes to our Constitution, we cannot join the ICC.

I'm not about to support screwing with our system of government unless someone can show me that the ICC is worth it. But from what I've seen, it just gives the world another way to use and abuse American troops.

More and more people and countries are getting p***** with them,all because of their government thinking they are a special case and shouldn't be judged like the rest of the world !!!

The rest of the world has no right to judge us in a court of law unless we agree to be judged. And since most of the world has never liked the US a heckuva lot (see your own post for evidence), why should we subject ourselves to these kinds of trials, biased and slanted against us from the start?

 

If you don't believe the ICC can judge American troops properly, why did the US insist on the handing over of Milosevitch, claiming that the ICC could judge him fairly?

Why does the US insist on other countries submitting to the ICC when it refuses?

and why does it constantly blackmail the UN?

 

Well i think they should.You can give me any American excuse you want.If you commit crimes,you should pay for them.American or not.


simple as that !!!





thats just me speaking as a fan of humans and their rights !!!

 

lavjoricso.......

Soldiers who committ crimes are still tried in American courts according to the American legal system. The government just doesn't like handing its soldiers over to be tried in a court where they don't have as many rights as U.S. citizens do.

 

I've a question.

Is USA going to invade the Netherlands if an American soldier is here for his war crimes...

I thought that the congress was to approve some kind of a law, that they could invade Holland to save the American soldier...

 

I hope not...I live in the Netherlands

But I would agree, once again they think they're better than others. Sometimes I wonder...

 

I hope not...I live in the Netherlands

hehehe me too the Hague to be exact...

where the international court is located

But I would agree, once again they think they're better than others. Sometimes I wonder...

Wonder what?

That they're going to take over the world

 

"Soldiers who committ crimes are still tried in American courts according to the American legal system."

Yes. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

SidiousDragon: Why does the US insist on other countries submitting to the ICC when it refuses?

Are you referring to Milosevic?

Darth_Omega: Is USA going to invade the Netherlands if an American soldier is here for his war crimes...

If any country abducts one of our soldiers, there will be several weeks of fierce diplomatic talks. If the country stonewalls (which I certainly can't see happening) then we remove our man.

Runaway_Shadow: But I would agree, once again they think they're better than others.

We don't refuse to join the ICC (a refusal grounded heavily in the fact that we CAN'T without undermining our Constitution) because we think we're better than you. That's reactionary propaganda.
No one should be judged by standards that they have not agreed to be judged by. We'll take care of our soldiers (we still hang them if their crime is bad enough) and you take care of your soldiers.
What's wrong with that?

 

Bush is pandering to the conservative, religious right in this decision.

It's not just the sense of superiority, but I think there are some religious conservatives who actually feel that the UN represents an 'anti-christ' body-I have actually seen them debate on TV in PA.

It's quite scary. But Bush and his cronies are also power-mongers who feel that 'we won the Cold War, we can do whatever we want'. It's a shame, since Clinton was far more global-friendly, and Gore certainly would have been.

But just remember everyone, our government deos not represent the thoughts of all americans, or even half of us...Bush lost the popular vote, and is president because of a flawed supreme court decision.

All my opinion, of course .

Peace,

V-03

 

Another reason why the UN is a piece of crock! Can't even bend the most powerful country to do what they want.

 

"Soldiers who committ crimes are still tried in American courts according to the American legal system."

Yes. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it's not fair. What if Milosevic was tried in the Yugoslavian(sp?) court.

He probably would be released and the same thing is with the American court.

That's why every person who commited a warcrime should be held at the Interantional court. No matter where he comes from...

Besides if they won't join, history will be repeating again. Remember League of Nations?

(which I certainly can't see happening) then we remove our man.

I can see that happpening after a while UN will get sick of the American Goverment actions.

War would be the result...

It's quite scary. But Bush and his cronies are also power-mongers who feel that 'we won the Cold War, we can do whatever we want'. It's a shame, since Clinton was far more global-friendly, and Gore certainly would have been.

That's why that every European dislike Bush...

the UN is a piece of crock! Can't even bend the most powerful country to do what they want.

As I said before UN should do something about it. Who cares they're the most powerfull nation at the present time

Stupid of them to allocate their headquarters in NY instead of Switzerland...

 

"He probably would be released and the same thing is with the American court."

Out of curiosity, how many American military court cases can you name? Or are you just guessing?

 

how many American military court cases can you name? Or are you just guessing?

well...

I heard from others about the things in Vietnam...

 

Because it's not fair. What if Milosevic was tried in the Yugoslavian(sp?) court.

He probably would be released and the same thing is with the American court.

You underestimate the America system of justice. It's not like we've got some kind of "Screw the world!" mentality.
Besides, there's a big difference between trying a soldier in a court of pre-determined law and trying a genocidal maniac in a court where he makes the law.

That's why every person who commited a warcrime should be held at the Interantional court. No matter where he comes from...

The ICC is a cheap way to drag down the US.
"We can't be super-powers," the rest of the world mutters angrily, "so they can't be either!"

I can see that happpening after a while UN will get sick of the American Goverment actions.

Yeah, they'll fall back on what they do best at a trying time like that--ask the US for troops and money.

Oh. Wait.

 

I recommend that anyone, especially Americans lately, that sees a statement as irresponsible as "America is BLACKMAILING the world!", not bother responding to the thread or poster. You are just playing along with their game.

 

The first example that comes to mind would be the Tailhook scandal, in which numerous drunken sailors harassed several women in a hotel, and were subsequently punished, while at the same time giving the Navy a huge black eye.

If your argument is that countries are incapable of trying their own soldiers, it's worth mentioning that Britain's Brigadier General Dyer was completely relieved of command for his war crimes in India. (Not a dig at the Brits; just pointing out that countries are capable of policing themselves.)

 

The ICC is a cheap way to drag down the US.
"We can't be super-powers," the rest of the world mutters angrily, "so they can't be either!"

Well I can't wait for history to repeat it self

ask the US for troops and money.

So tell me, how is the US planning to win a war if every country is against them?

Even if war is harsh we could always boycott you guys

The first example that comes to mind would be the Tailhook scandal, in which numerous drunken sailors harassed several women in a hotel, and were subsequently punished, while at the same time giving the Navy a huge black eye.

The second one should be about the Vietnam war please...

 

I'll have to get back to you on that, as I'm just about to take off for the day.

Talk to you soon.

 

So tell me, how is the US planning to win a war if every country is against them?

I'd love to indulge in the fantasy, but the rest world is too pacifistic to consider attacking the US.

I wonder how it would turn out though

 

I'd love to indulge in the fantasy, but the rest world is too pacifistic to consider attacking the US.

I wonder how it would turn out though

I dunno...

and if we boycott you?

 

We produce 25% of the world's resources. I think we'll pull through